NASA Moonwalker claims alien cover-up

[Tschachim]

I sought very sincerely too, and he showed up. I know of other people that didn't search at all and God just stood in their way and didn't let them pass around him.

The rather obvious next steps for an empirical guy like me would be the request to show me your "data", i.e. what did you/other people experience exactly, so we can do further research. (This isn't meant really serious though as we would get off-topic even more)

To understand the details of many scientific theories, you simply have to be smarter than bobby everyman. Which means that Bobby everyman won't ever get it.

Well, this is just my personal opinion but I think you don't have to be smarter then bobby everyman, but more industrious and interested in nature/science. There's stuff which is really hard to understand, of course, but using your example, the basics of quantum mechanics is something most people can understand after a couple of years working on that.

... or rocket science after a couple of years playing Orbiter...

 

[Urwumpe]

sorry again. I meant practical apliances for everyday use by everyday people.

So, having all sorts of optimization problems solved for you with minimal costs is not practical for you? Car manufacturers use already such algorithms for optimizing the structures of cars, so they weight less, than they would with classic design patterns.

Also the theory of evolution is responsible for all sorts of genetic engineering and medicine, though it could have been developed before evolution - but both genetics and evolution are closely related.

 

[bujin]

Sorry, what I meant is that you can't use evolution theory to construct any usefull apliances based on it.

Ok, I should have started by saying I fundamentally disagree with the point about science needing to prove itself through practical applications.

As this relevant page on TalkOrigins says,

7. Good science need not have any application beyond satisfying curiosity. Much of astronomy, geology, paleontology, natural history, and other sciences have no practical application. For many people, knowledge is a worthy end in itself.

The rest of the article addresses the uses of the theory of evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html

 

[simonpro]

So, having all sorts of optimization problems solved for you with minimal costs is not practical for you? Car manufacturers use already such algorithms for optimizing the structures of cars, so they weight less, than they would with classic design patterns.

Don't forget aircraft. The A380 and whatever the new Boeing is called both used genetic algorithms in their development.

 

[jedidia]

So, having all sorts of optimization problems solved for you with minimal costs is not practical for you?

It is practical, but I don't get in touch with the process. It's nothing people can relate to, like they can to their IPhone. You can tell them "See, this thing wouldn't exist if it wasn't for discoveries in quantum physics", and they say "ohhh, cool. hurra for quantum physics!"
You can tell them "your car would have needed several more months of developement time if it wasn't for evolutionary theory", and they go "what the hell are you talking about?"

There are not much people that are actually aware that evolutionary theory has any practical use. I was not until before half an hour, for example.

The rather obvious next steps for an empirical guy like me would be the request to show me your "data", i.e. what did you/other people experience exactly, so we can do further research.

I know. And I can tell you what you'll get: Radically different data from everyone, with probably some similarities and some paterns repeating in some of them, but still every story will be unique. It's not much use, people tried it already.

 

[Urwumpe]

It is practical, but I don't get in touch with the process.

You also don't get in touch with so many processes, yet I doubt you will consider them magical or impractical. Can you produce flour yourself? Or gasoline? Can you build a mobile phone? All not rocket science.

Or much lower: Can you forge a knife? you can touch it. But you can't do it. You would need serious equipment (and believe me: I tried to build a forge myself in my garden out of curiosity. Even getting the fireplace done right is rocket science) and skills, compared to that Quantum physics are trivial (for example knowing the right temperature of steel for the next step in the process and planning your activities and fireplace over multiple days).

This is a very weak excuse, that you are using. You can't tell: This basic research like Evolution is useless, because it contributes only a minor part in my subjective view into the final application. Without it, you wouldn't have the final product as it is, you can't take or argue it away.

 

[Hielor]

which, as I said, is still not possible to most people, allthough they might have all the procedures, which is not very helpfull. Indeed, it reminds me of some experiences I had with some brothers and sisters in faith, that provided me with V-E-R-Y accurate procedures on what you'd have to do to get certain things from God. If it didn't work, well, one item on the list wasn't executed correctly. Like e.g. you have hidden sin in your life or didn't repent in all sincerety or blablabla. Needless to say I'm fed up with that kind of s***, but for someone that has a general distrust in scientists, their arguing might sound very similiar.

Again you completely miss the point.

With science, you have a list of equipment and a list of procedures. If you obtain the equipment (regardless of your financial inability to do so) and repeat the procedures (exactly), you will reproduce the outcome.

Religion offers no such guarantee. It's different for every person.

 

[jedidia]

This is a very weak excuse, that you are using. You can't tell: This basic research like Evolution is useless, because it contributes only a minor part in my subjective view into the final application.

Sorry, this is not what I meant at all. I meant that people are not aware of the benefits of evolution theory (i.e. don't see it working in their everyday lifes) and are therefore more liable to mistrust it than other theories. It seems unesential, and can therefore be denied easier than a theory which was needed to make their computer run. (so yeah, you're above statement aplies... not to me, but to others. I'm just pointing out reasons why it might be like that).

Religion offers no such guarantee. It's different for every person.

believe me, there are people that (sadly) think otherwise.
It is NOT my goal to lift subjective proof on the level of objective proof. What I'm trying to do is showing that objective proof can seem very subjective in the eye of a mistrusting beholder.

 

[JEL]

If this is the case, then it doesn't matter what I think anyway, since my outlook is flawed from the start. In that situation, I could just as easily have pink unicorns prancing around, and that would be my "reality." Please, confine discussions to the real reality...

To quote a sentence you apparently often use yourself; You completely miss the point
Your belief MIGHT matter, since your actions based on it MIGHT have an impact on potentially real people, and also on yourself.

IF your own mind is all that exists, THEN it might not matter, but IF your own mind is NOT all that exists then it MIGHT matter.

The bottom-line is that you DON'T KNOW if it matters, and thus can ONLY go on belief (both concerning your view on god/spirituality as well as your view on science)

If your reality is exactly as you believe it is, and it MIGHT be, then all you say about science would be correct. But if reality is NOT exactly as you believe it is, then you are obviously wrong in your absolutist views. That's simple logic



Unless you know everything, how can you know 'god' does not exist?

Where is the science-proof that rules out the existence of god?

What experiment can I do that proves god does not exist?

What empiri denies god?





Here's a funny little example; I've never seen your face, does that prove you don't have one?

Even if you deliberately hide it from me so I never get to see it I would still expect you to have a face. I can't really prove that you DON'T have one just because I can't get to see it.

Ergo; science is not in opposition to god/spirituality, or unseen faces. Science does not exclude the possibility of anything, it just defines the probability that if A is so and so, then B is likely so and so "because that is what have been observed in most or all tried cases as of yet". Probability is a key-word

So please keep god out of science Stick to what you can see, not what you THINK you can see. Science is not about unfounded assumptions, but about observability. If you yourself can't observe it, don't automatically assume that no one else can.

God MAY be there.

Moreover, the fact that you have to resort to such stretches of the imagination in order to construct a situation in which the scientific method is invalid, I think, proves a point...

You don't have to like the truth, but you have to accept it, otherwise you're just defending a cozy fairytale and not the real truth.

 

[Hielor]

Your belief MIGHT matter, since your actions based on it MIGHT have an impact on potentially real people, and also on yourself.

IF your own mind is all that exists, THEN it might not matter, but IF your own mind is NOT all that exists then it MIGHT matter.

The bottom-line is that you DON'T KNOW if it matters, and thus can ONLY go on belief (both concerning your view on god/spirituality as well as your view on science)

If your reality is exactly as you believe it is, and it MIGHT be, then all you say about science would be correct. But if reality is NOT exactly as you believe it is, then you are obviously wrong in your absolutist views. That's simple logic

Your own "reality" is the only "reality" you have to go on, so you have to act in accordance with the "reality" you see, because you cannot perceive any other.

Unless you know everything, how can you know 'god' does not exist?

Where is the science-proof that rules out the existence of god?

What experiment can I do that proves god does not exist?

What empiri denies god?

Which is why I'm agnostic, not athiest. Moreover, the fact that the existence of God cannot be disproven immediately makes it unscientific.

Here's a funny little example; I've never seen your face, does that prove you don't have one?

Here's a funny little example; You've never seen the invisible pink unicorn in my garage, does that prove I don't have one?

Ergo; science is not in opposition to god/spirituality, or unseen faces. Science does not exclude the possibility of anything, it just defines the probability that if A is so and so, then B is likely so and so "because that is what have been observed in most or all tried cases as of yet". Probability is a key-word

So please keep god out of science Stick to what you can see, not what you THINK you can see. Science is not about unfounded assumptions, but about observability. If you yourself can't observe it, don't automatically assume that no one else can.

God MAY be there.

Wait, I'm putting God in science? This whole thread I've been saying nothing but "Religious beliefs are not scientific"...

You just did more to prove that point in one post than I had in the entire thread, thanks... Religious beliefs have no place in science and are not scientific.

You don't have to like the truth, but you have to accept it, otherwise you're just defending a cozy fairytale and not the real truth.

There is much irony here.

 

[jedidia]

I guess this would be a good place to quote Stephen Hawkins:

We can assume that the universe exists. People trying to proof that it doesn't are usually working in another trade than science.

 

[JEL]

Your own "reality" is the only "reality" you have to go on, so you have to act in accordance with the "reality" you see, because you cannot perceive any other.

And what do you BELIEVE you see?

#1: An actual objective world existing outside your subjective mind.

Or

#2: An internal projection of entirely self-generated subjective thoughts.


When you've made your choice, show me the scientific evidence that backs it, and makes it more than a belief on your part

The scientific explanation can be disproven. The faith explanation cannot.

With belief, you blindly accept that something is true without seeking the truth of it, and often refuse to accept any evidence that suggests otherwise. You don't think it needs to be proven, because it's self-evident (to you).

With science, you actually seek out to prove that the thing is true...

 

[Hielor]

And what do you BELIEVE you see?

#1: An actual objective world existing outside your subjective mind.

Or

#2: An internal projection of entirely self-generated subjective thoughts.


When you've made your choice, show me the scientific evidence that backs it, and makes it more than a belief on your part

You know, I can't possibly imagine why there haven't been scientific experiments to solve this question, or why the US government hasn't provided grant money to someone attempting to prove that his reality is an internal projection of entirely self-generated subjective thoughts.

I direct you to jedida's post.

 

[JEL]

Well, maybe because it would be just as futile as trying to prove or disprove god's existence

If Stephen Hawkins have said "We can assume...", then he has already stated clearly that he BELIEVES in an objective world (hence the term "WE" )
However, a belief is not evidence.

And you still haven't offered any scientific evidence that could clarify whether or not you are just dreaming all of this, even if you BELIEVE you are not

This philosophical problem, solipsism, wont go away Hielor.

 

[Hielor]

Well, maybe because it would be just as futile as trying to prove or disprove god's existence

If Stephen Hawkins have said "We can assume...", then he has already stated clearly that he BELIEVES in an objective world (hence the term "WE" )
However, a belief is not evidence.

And you still haven't offered any scientific evidence that could clarify whether or not you are just dreaming all of this, even if you BELIEVE you are not

This philosophical problem, solipsism, wont go away Hielor.

Apparently, the argument must come from within this absurd framework you have established. So be it.

You are certain, in your own mind, that you are not merely a figment of someone else's mind. You have, as far as you can tell, free will and the ability to make your own choices concerning your own actions. So, if it is the case that everything that exists is someone's dream, it must be your dream.

If everything around you exists only in your mind, then surely you are free to assert your will upon the "world" around you. "Use the force," if you will, to summon a pen from across the room to your hand. If the world exists entirely in your brain, why can't you? Were you able to accomplish such feats (and no other people, outside of your permission, were), then you would be able to prove to the satisfaction of the figments of your imagination that you are in fact the only consciousness in your world. Nevermind that you would have no need to perform such proof, because you could just reconstruct the figments of your imagination to be "aware" of their status as figments of your imagination, without needing to bother with any actual proving.

This is identical to the supreme-being situation -- it would be extremely easy to prove the existence of a supreme being (given the cooperation of aforementioned supreme being, of course), but it is impossible to disprove the existence of a supreme being. However, the inability to disprove something does not constitute a proof.

"Oh," say you, "but I don't have the ability to consciously manipulate the figments of my imagination."

In that case, there are two 'beings' at work here--the you which you are capable of controlling and acting upon, and the you-prime which is the imagination which is imagining both you and the world around you. Since the you has no control over the you-prime (because it has no control over the world that you-prime are dreaming), you and you-prime are, from the perspective of you, not the same. Therefore, you cannot claim that the world around you is a figment of your imagination, because it is in reality a figment of you-prime's imagination. You cannot now prove the point either way, which means that it makes no difference. The objects and people which are not you are controlled by something other than you, regardless of what that something is.

The burden of proof, therefore, lies on you -- if you have a theory which cannot be disproven, but can be proven, go forth and prove it; otherwise you're just being lazy in asking people to not believe differently than you.

 

[JEL]

I must say, Hielor, for a science-geek you appear quite hostile toward this mind-challenge. A bit like religious fanatics behave when challenged, if you pardon my saying so.

You should not be afraid of being wrong, but you should be afraid of being afraid of learning

Anyway, I disagree with your assumption about 2 beings being at work if it's a dream.

Compare to any dream you have had yourself while sleeping. You can meet other people in such dreams, and even talk or interact with them, but who controls what happen's in your dream?

I assume, correct me if that assumption is wrong, that you believe that a dream you have while sleeping is entirely YOUR own mind's creation. So if YOU cannot control all actions inside such a dream, a dream entirely YOURS, but only some actions (like what you say, but not what the person you talk to is saying, etc), does that then prove that 2 minds are having YOUR dream?

I think your logic is flawed on that one

 

[jedidia]

Hielors reasoning was flawless as far as I can see, and indeed he allready described and answered what you pointed out. You should read more carefully next time:

You cannot now prove the point either way, which means that it makes no difference. The objects and people which are not you are controlled by something other than you, regardless of what that something is.

Or, in more plain language, no matter who or what controls your "dream", if you analise behaviour and laws and based on these observations develop a theory how things in your dream work which allow reliable predictions, you're doing science, No matter wheather you're really in a dream or not.

 

[Hielor]

I must say, Hielor, for a science-geek you appear quite hostile toward this mind-challenge. A bit like religious fanatics behave when challenged, if you pardon my saying so.

You should not be afraid of being wrong, but you should be afraid of being afraid of learning

Anyway, I disagree with your assumption about 2 beings being at work if it's a dream.

Compare to any dream you have had yourself while sleeping. You can meet other people in such dreams, and even talk or interact with them, but who controls what happen's in your dream?

I assume, correct me if that assumption is wrong, that you believe that a dream you have while sleeping is entirely YOUR own mind's creation. So if YOU cannot control all actions inside such a dream, a dream entirely YOURS, but only some actions (like what you say, but not what the person you talk to is saying, etc), does that then prove that 2 minds are having YOUR dream?

I think your logic is flawed on that one

Perhaps your argument makes less sense to me, because I am a lucid dreamer. That is, I *can* control the vast majority of things inside my dreams.

 

[insanity]

Alright so we've progressed to cogito ergo sum. We're making great philosophical strides in this thread! Correct me if I'm wrong Heilor, but your argument was basically that you are bound the accept the framework of the reality you are subject to because there is no way of disproving its realness. If so, I completely agree.

The dream example doesn't really hold water as far as I'm concerned, regardless of the mechanisms that make you dream you will inevitably and usually predictably wake-up into this reality where the rules remain more or less constant. When I wake up I know I was in a dream and (after a second or so) I know that I'm now awake. Because this is the 'highest' plane of existence I know about I'm forced to accept its validity. Thankfully, we can make observations and predictions about the universe and be pretty damn good at it too.

An important point about that is that we can not assume the observer is viewing objective reality. Observation implies some degree of bias (our minds, however amazing, are still systems with limits). Another related point is that there will always be a level of explanation beyond our ability to reason. This leaves room for faith, in my opinion.

Where the religious people go wrong is trying to drive a wedge between science and belief by taking metaphors and analogies literally instead of using their mind to just appreciate how cool it all really is. I admit I'm biased, I have a lot of faith in the scientific method as the best way to describe our reality, but I don't discount the possibility for a higher power.

Also, the best proof of a God is that there were once freaking dinosaurs on this planet! Dinosaurs! I know if I were a God I would entertain myself by making awesome things and then killing them off so that millions of years later they would confuse the hell out of everybody.

 

[Moonwalker]

Perhaps your argument makes less sense to me, because I am a lucid dreamer. That is, I *can* control the vast majority of things inside my dreams.

So we seem to have something in common

When I was young I always thought that controlling dreams is usual to some degree. But I had to learn it is not. Most people sadly don't even remember their dreams. I always remember them, and even more strange, I like bad dreams, for example when somebody follows me. While this is happening, I mostly know it is a dream. It's like waching a good horror movie.

Do you also manage to "consciously" awake at a certain point in your dream? Not always, but sometimes this happens in my dreams. The transition is a strange feeling, accompanied by a short but severe vertigo and a rapid heartbeat that remains for about 20-30 seconds once I'm awake. But it doesn't really feel inconvenient. Sometimes I can still hear myself babble something for a second, which is embarrassing to me although I'm sleeping alone all the time.

But one thing did never happen in my dreams for now, which is not meant as a joke: I've never had sex (the actual act) in my dreams for now. But that may be due to my asexuality.

Another strange things is that in about 90% of all of my dreams I manage to fly, which seems to be an inherent part of my dreams, no matter what the dream is about. And I never awake when I'm going to crash or when I fall down unlike other people who told me so. I always stand up again and that's it. Even when I'm badly hurt.

---------- Post added at 07:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:47 PM ----------

An important point about that is that we can not assume the observer is viewing objective reality. Observation implies some degree of bias (our minds, however amazing, are still systems with limits).

So, for example World War II, the Holocaust, the Tsunami in 2004 and all of the victims can't be assumed to be observable "objective reality"? What's it then? A dream? A vision?

That's why I always have problems whenever people try to argue about reality.